The Commissioner of Income Tax-8 v. M/s. Hotel Corporation of India Ltd
[Citation -2014-LL-1105-6]

Citation 2014-LL-1105-6
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income Tax-8
Respondent Name M/s. Hotel Corporation of India Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/11/2014
Assessment Year 2003-04
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags computation of capital gain • incorrect computation • revenue loss
Bot Summary: Y ba 2 The Tribunal's order dated 28th March, 2012 records that the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer is wholly om vitiated. The Assessing Officer had made an order called the original assessment order. The Assessee made an additional claim of B Rs.27,92,693/- in the revised return of income whereas the original claim on the renovation expenditure was Rs.76.23 lacs. The Assessing Officer completed the original assessment on the basis of this return of income. Rt ou 3 However, on closure scrutiny of the records, the Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer on the point of C incorrect computation of capital gain does not demonstrate as to how the income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer in the meanwhile had accepted the explanation of y the Assessee and did not proceed. We find ba that the Tribunal's reasoning from paras 10 to 13 is not vitiated by perversity or any error of law apparent on the face of the record.


k 13 itxa 1112.12 os.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION rt INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1112 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-8 ... Appellant. ou V/s. M/s. Hotel Corporation of India Ltd. ... Respondent. Mr. Tejveer Singh for Appellant. C Mr. Ashok J. Patil for Respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND h A.A. SAYED, JJ. ig DATED : 5 NOVEMBER, 2014. P.C. : H 1 This Appeal by Revenue challenges order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Income Tax Appeal No.7246/Mum of 2008. Assessment Year is 2003-2004. y ba 2 Tribunal's order dated 28th March, 2012 records that reopening of assessment by Assessing Officer is wholly om vitiated. Assessing Officer had made order called original assessment order. Assessee made additional claim of B Rs.27,92,693/- in revised return of income whereas original claim on renovation expenditure was Rs.76.23 lacs. Assessing Officer completed original assessment on basis of this return of income. He did not complete it on basis of revised return of income. On that footing it was alleged that Revenue loss is 1/2 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 15:59:21 ::: k 13 itxa 1112.12 os.doc enormous and as noted by Tribunal in argument of Departmental Representative. rt ou 3 However, on closure scrutiny of records, Tribunal found that reasons recorded by Assessing Officer on point of C incorrect computation of capital gain does not demonstrate as to how income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. In fact no error was pointed out and apparent one in computation of h capital gain which could be said to be contrary to law. reasons in ig fact go to disclose that Assessee offered explanation and still H notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued. Assessing Officer in meanwhile had accepted explanation of y Assessee and did not proceed. In such circumstances, we find ba that Tribunal's reasoning from paras 10 to 13 is not vitiated by perversity or any error of law apparent on face of record. In such circumstances, Tribunal was justified in allowing Assessee's om Appeal. present Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. B (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) katkam 2/2 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 15:59:21 ::: Commissioner of Income Tax-8 v. M/s. Hotel Corporation of India Ltd
Report Error